IX. THE NOMENCLATURE OF FOSSIL PLANTS

Abstract

ARTICLE 9 of International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature2 provides that the rules and recommendations of botanical nomenclature apply to all classes of plant kingdom, recent and fossil, with certain distinctly specified exceptions. However, examination of Rules soon reveals that certain important aspects of nomenclature of fossil plants are not yet covered by specific articles and recommendations. To remedy this condition, several sets of new proposals have been advanced, notably those by Jongmans, Halle, and Gothan,3 those by British paleobotanists,4 and those recently formulated by American paleobotanists. These three groups of proposals are representative of opinions held by many paleobotanists, whereas proposals of Dubois-Ladurantie and Gaussen5 and Hylander6 are outgrowths of individual efforts to resolve existing difficulties. Although these sets of proposals differ in various ways from one another and Rules, most of them prove that existing framework of latter is capable of expansion and correction to cover paleobotanical nomenclature. As actual proposals either have been published, or, like American proposals, are to be published in near future, main part of following discussion will deal with more important aspects of paleobotanical nomenclature represented by latter. A brief comment regarding American Committee on Paleobotanical Nomenclature may here be in order. Founded shortly before war,7 and hampered at first by it, original Committee was replaced by present one in March, 1947. The Droposals received and acted upon by present 1 For their active participation, either in formulating proposals or by critical reading of manuscript, author is greatly indebted to Dr. E. E. Sherff, Chairman of Symposium; Dr. W. H. Camp, Chairman of Committee on Nomenclature, American Society of Plant Taxonomists; to members of Committee on Paleobotanical Nomenclature, Drs. J. H. Johnson, H. L. Mason, and N. W. Radforth; and to several colleagues, especially Drs. J. M. Schopf, H. N. Andrews, Jr., and C. A. Arnold. 2 Bisby, G. R. An Introduction to Taxonomy and Nomenclature of Fungi. Kew. 1945. Camp, W. H., H. W. Rickett, and C. A. Weatherby. International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature. Brittonia 6: 1-120. 1947. 3 Jongmans, W., T. G. Halle, and W. Gothan. Proposed Additions to International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature. Adopted by Fifth International Botanical Congress Cambridge 1930. Heerlen. 1935. 4 Thomas, H. H. Proposed Additions to International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature. Suggested by British Paleobotanists. Jour. Bot. 73: 111-113. 1935. 5 Dubois-Ladurantie, G., et H. Gaussen. Projet de Nomenclature Paleobotanique. Bull. Soc. d'Hist. Nat. Toulouse 76:289-295. 1941. 6 Hylander, Nils. International Rules of Scientific Botanical Nomenclature-A New Proposal. 1948. 7 Schopf, J. M. American Committee on Paleobotanical Nomenclature. Chronica Botanica 7: 226-227. 1942. Committee will be published, together with those submitted to Committee on Nomenclature of American Society of Plant Taxonomists.8 The resulting publication will contain complete text of all proposals and accompanying arguments, together with names of respective authors. As a group, American paleobotanical proposals readily reflect spirit of Rules. For, if adopted, they are likely to effect least number of nomenclatural changes toward eventual stabilization of paleobotanical nomenclature. EXCEPTIONS TO THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY.The recent discovery in China of a living Metasequoia,9 quickly resulted in a new proposal badly needed for selection of types, if names of related living and fossil plants are involved.10 Its published version has just been modified bv its author and as such approved by two American committees mentioned above. It now reads as follows: Names based on types derived from modern material always take nomenclatural precedence over names permanently attached to specimens of fossil or subfossil character. The reason for this proposal, its bearing on similar cases, and possible implications for future paleobotanical discoveries have been stated by its author and need not be detailed again. It is interesting to note, however, that no similar proposal has been incorporated among various recommendations by European paleobotanists. Although this proposal would actually sanction occasional departures from principle of priority as stipulated in Rules, such instances are not likely to be very numerous. In fact, number of exceptions to consistent application of principle of priority resulting from adoption of this proposal will be small compared with many names bound to appear on projected list of nomina generica conservanda of fossil plants. An objection concerns possibility of confusion arising from converse application of names of fossil plants to living plants. Although this problem exists, it is not very serious. According to art. 61, names of fossil plants applied to living